ABBAS and 3 others vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from an incident involving murder and severe injuries. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who were declared innocent by successive police investigators but implicated in the initial F.I.R. and later suspected of conspiracy, are entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding police reports finding them innocent, a prima facie case of conspiracy could be inferred given their close familial relationship with the principal accused and the circumstances surrounding the hatching of the conspiracy. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that their case did not warrant further inquiry at this stage. The key principle laid down is that where police investigation suggests complicity by way of conspiracy and close association with absconding culprits, bail may be refused even if subsequent investigation reports placed the accused in column No. 3 of the challan.
- Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when successive police investigation reports declare them innocent but prima facie evidence of conspiracy exists?
- Does the inclusion of an accused in column No. 3 of the challan automatically entitle them to bail?
- Can a court infer criminal conspiracy for the purpose of bail based on familial ties to the principal offenders and circumstances of the crime?
' The occurrence took place on 29-7-1992 at 3-00 a.m. And the matter was reported to the police at 7-00 a.m. By Malla complainant. Riaz was murdered at the spot while Manzoor P.W. Received severe injuries.
2. According to the F.I.R. The petitioners alongwith Ashiq armed with guns had assaulted and indulged in the occurrence.
3. Contention raised is that the petitioners were innocent, were so found by the first two investigators and even the third investigator to whom the investigation was transferred at the instance of the complainant party have all concluded so, though the last-mentioned Invesigating Officer has not ruled out the possibility of the conspiracy on the part of the petitioneRs, The challan has been submitted in Court. According to the final report submitted it were Ashiq accused and Riaz, a brother of Mazhar petitioner who alongwith some unknown persons had committed the occurrence. No weapon was recovered from the petitioneRs, A carbine was recovered from the above-mentioned Riaz but the two crime empties recovered from the spot have not wedded with it according to the Forensic Expert's report.
4. On these facts learned counsel has contended that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the State argues that the case having been submitted in Court, the petitioners have been shown in Column No,3 of the challan and so the trial may be ordered to be expedited.
5. After hearing the learned counsel and the present investigator (Ch. Muhammad Hussain, D.S.P.) at length, conspiracy on the part of the petitioners can be inferred prima facie. They are the close relatives of the actual culprits, according to the investigation, who are Ashiq, still an absconder and above-mentioned Riaz. Abbas petitioner is the son of Ashiq absconder, According to the version in the F.I.R. The conspiracy was hatched by Arshad, Ijaz and Nawaz, another son of the proclaimed offender. They three were sent to jail only one or two days before the occurrence. In the circumstances, if not the actual murderers, as conspirators, the petitioners are prima facie concerned in the occurrence. No ground for bail. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD ANEES and anothers vs ABDUL QAYYUM alias KALLA KHAN and another 2013 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 264, 2013 YLR 720
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ 2003 MLD 1797
- SAID ALI vs THE STATE 1999 YLR 1014
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR vs THE STATE 1999 MLD 1206